Instead of Durbin's Bringing Fugitives To Justice Act - How About We End Sanctuary?

Instead of Durbin's Bringing Fugitives To Justice Act - How About We End Sanctuary?

Illinois Senator Richard Durbin would like to strengthen the Justice Department's ability to apprehend border-crossing fugitives and has proposed the enactment of an "Bringing Fugitives To Justice Act." In addition to this "immediate" initiative, Durbin has also talked with Mexico's Ambassador about revisiting our 30 year-old extradition treaty which omits serious crimes.

Okay, I get what the Senator is proposing here, but, I have to wonder why he has been unapologetic in unconditionally supporting Illinois', and more specifically Chicago's, Sanctuary status?

Chicago, as well as other heavily Hispanic cities, have refused to cooperate with Federal Officials when it comes to turning over illegal aliens - even if they have been notified to hold those sought on warrants. Judges, meanwhile, allow illegals to bail bond out only to see them flee prosecution later. Naturally, this is just outright bad behavior. Then again it probably has more to do with political pandering than anything else. I mean, what else would explain our politician's "scared shitless of a powerful voting constituency" attitude that persists around here? It is pretty obvious, though, that our politicians don't want to do right thing. And another thing too - the Hispanic constituency's sense of right on this debate is not only flawed but does a serious disservice to their own people because they know that Illegals have been used as nothing more than political pawns for years. Sadly, pawns are easily sacrificed and that is exactly what President Barack Obama did pretty much right after he was elected. And just for the record, President Obama's Administration has deported more illegals than his predecessor did in two terms.

You know, I have often said that we must have a "real solution" to the illegal immigrant problem. Delaying a comprehensive reform of our immigration policy has only led to numerous amnesties which have done nothing to stem the overall tide and effects of taking on a larger economic burden than we can sustain. In fact, amnesties have only encouraged more people to illegally migrate over the borders in hopes that, yet, another amnesty will be announced. Look, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that sort of thinking is counter productive on way too many economic levels. Having hidden illegal societies living within a legal one only leads to the siphoning-off of valuable resources and adds to crime. And that crime isn't necessarily aimed at legal residents, often illegals themselves are the prey.

If people thought about this issue a little bit more in depth they would understand that illegals are taken advantage of by a wide variety of opportunists; i.e.from their own people to the business interests either owned or supported by sitting politicians. But hey what the hell, so long as everyone of those opportunity hunters are making money, the thought of screwing illegals out of a livable wage just never comes to mind. Many of our politicians are only concerned about making sure that that status quo is maintained and that is why they are reluctant (unwilling) to offer up any sensible immigration solutions.

And to think - people really have to wonder why Washington politicians have done nothing about the "illegal problem." Well why should they? Far too many powerful people, and the interests who have long contributed to their pocket books are tickled pink by this arrangement. And yes, there are even elected Hispanic officials who can live with this sort of inequity so long as their finacial bottom-lines are intact. But don't mistake their fiery rhetoric for being sympathetic - they literally speak out of both sides of their mouths when they condemn the inaction of their"colleagues."

Politicians have long colluded amongst themselves while slipping into bed with powerful special interest groups financed by Big Business.

Of course, that collusion has produced a substantial number winners at the top, but let's not forget that that has also produced a larger number of losers. Especially among the regular taxpaying public who are forced to subsidize not only what the illegals must take from the system, but for what Big Business takes back to offset all of their generous political contributions. It is, as they say, a vicious cycle.

But let's not kid ourselves here, there are greater consequences and they include the cutting of vital resources by cash-strapped municipalities, school districts who are going bankrupt because by law they must educate the children of those parents who contribute nothing, or near to nothing to the tax base, the costs associated with a health system that must raise their rates to compensate for those who cannot pay or the higher costs associated with our own personal insurance premiums to offset for those who do not carry their own coverage. The negatives, it seems, outweigh the positives. And we haven't even considered another important aspect, illegals have been known to vote and that is simply something that cannot be condoned. And to think people complain about having to show proper identification to prove who you say you are? Hell, we must do that nearly everyday of our lives for less important matters - but to do that immediately gets met with resistance by the supporters of illegal immigration?

Yet there is absolutely no political will to deal with the multitude of problems!

Sadly, what people seem to miss in the illegal debate is that Sanctuary is by no means an act of kindness by our less than illustrious politicians. It is designed to serve only as an illusion and a means to maintain the status quo. Business thrives on paying less than the going rate, if you know what I mean? But, so long as voters keep reelecting the same "speaking out of both sides of their mouth politicians" then the hard truth is that there can be no hope for finding a solution.

But you know something? It is awfully strange to me that supporters of illegal immigration (actually migration) can't see that they have been played like pawns on a Chess board. The facts, though, couldn't be clearer. Sanctuary is not only a flawed system, but it demeans the human dignity of those accepting it and places them into a no-win situation.

I just wonder if Senator Durbin will ever address that?


Follow maciric on Twitter



Leave a comment
  • Well, when you have the Chicana in the right panel saying that Mexico is too dangerous to where to deport people, you see where the politics are going.

    On the Durbin point, the main issue seems to be that he is saying to throw more money at the problem, which is his usual response. The real issue is that it is up to the Feds (not the states or state subdivisions) to enforce the immigration laws, and while the Obama Administration claims that there is a bigger fence, if resources are needed to get this under control, they have to be given to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Of course, on the state court level, the judges are supposed to assure that bail is given only to those whose appearance can be secured, but I'm sure the real issue in their minds is that Cook County Jail is overcrowded. Preckwinkle is both pandering and complaining about the cost of running the jail.

  • In reply to jack:

    How right you are Jack. And I don't think throwing more money at it is the way to go. I agree that it is uo to the FEDS but it galls me when the city so blatantly ignores a "hold" request.

    In reality, I would think all the authorities would want to to make an effort, after all - it costs money they don't have. As for Cook County Jail, well that has been over-crowded for years and I can see not incarcerating non-violent offenders to ease crowding. But then we have another problem - probation officers in short supply. You know it goes on and on, the Demi-Crooks steal and deal while tax monies that were designated for a multitude of services are short-changed. The problems Preckwinkle talks of are mostly self-induced?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I was with you to the last sentence. I'm sure that money problems in the sheriff's office are probably 30 years in the making. One would think that the sheriff needs the money to hire the deputies to keep control of the jail, but Preckwinkle got on Dart's case because the deputies were abusing time off.

    Sort of the same with Lisa Madigan--back about 2007 she was crying to Zorn that Blago cut her budget so she couldn't do her constitutional duties, but then shut up until about a week ago, when she said the same about Quinn. One can't tell if that's the case or not, and in that she says she is a profit center for the state, apparently she conceives her only job is suing businesses under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act for the purpose of getting monetary settlements for the state.

  • In reply to jack:

    I agree with you on the "in the making part." That is primarily what I meant. Preckwinkle has been a part of the system for awile now and knows how things work, especially the costs of patronage upon the units of government in Cook County. Ergo - much of the dilemma has been self-induced.

    I certainly can't agree with Dart's Department being cut to the bone since his function has a direct impact upon the people. But we have to be honest here too, how many employees over the years were dumped into the Cook County Sheriff's Department? Plenty - and I have known quite a few of them.

    Madigan - Profit Center? Well I suppose that can be a yes or a no. But litigation costs money - especially long and dragged-out litigation. I know the courts allow for payment of court costs but would be curious as to what the "Net" was since settlements rarely involve admitting guilt.

    I think nothing changes "as a whole" until patronage and its attached pension burdens are dealt with. And that would include the many shadow government jobs; i.e. state boards, commissions, etc.

    Waste has, and continues to be, Chicago / Illinois' biggest problem and they just can't dig their way out with new ingeneous ways to tax people. We are at the point of diminishing returns.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    The diminishing returns, of course.

    With regard to Lisa and settlements, it was basically a reference to her saying that she was going to emulate Eliot Spitzer, until Eliot got enmeshed in that little thing about prostitution and money laundering, and, unlike Blago, decided to resign an avoid being indicted. Try this Google search: + madigan + "press release" + settlement for press releases about settlements on the IAG website. The question on all of this is how much goes to the affected consumers, compared to how much goes to the State, such as in the tobacco settlement. You can rest assured that part of the settlement is that the defendant pays court costs. And, as indicated by the original reference to "funding constitutional duties," the taxpayers have to pay for the office, regardless of whether the assistants are suing anyone.

    Her home page also has an "insuring honest and accountable government" icon but we know she does little about that. The link is to the FOIA page, but we discussed Rahm's view of that law.

    With regard to the number of units of local government, Andy Shaw or someone similar was on the radio Monday asking "how many units of local government in Cook County impose property taxes." Before he answered, I said "580." Answer was 550, so close enough. But we also have to add other units, like the RTA, that don't impose property taxes, but impose others (such as sales tax), and I consider it piling on that most home rule units impose not only property taxes, but every other kind. The myriad of school districts in Cook County undoubtedly adds to the total (probably 150 of those alone).

  • In reply to jack:

    I get a kick out of "insuring honest and accountable government." What a crock - if that were so she would have gone after pappy and Cullerton for starters. You make a good point too in how much does the affected consumer get as opposed to going to the General Fund and then squandered; i.e. The Tobacco Settlement. Apparently that fund is nearly dry if not exhausted already. Consumers got TV Ads. Go figure. The FOIA here in Illinois is a total joke.

    Yes, I agree too that taxpayers pay for the office regardless, but as we know large litigation bring in "consultants and experts" so there will be another expense on top of the normal costs. Now I am not sure if a settlement takes into "full account" of those monies or not. You probably know better on that given your background in Law.

    As for the number of units of government - ooh yes! You know I agree with you there. We had a fine comment conversation when I wrote that piece.

    Thanks for the link will check it out right now.

Leave a comment